Re: [discuss] Is there a list of known file format incompatibilities?
(Yes, I know I've already replied...) On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 15:14 +0100, Jim Ottaway wrote: So I was wondering if there was a list of known incompatibilities that I could look at to anticipate any potential problems. I have looked around, and the closest thing I could find was the issues database, but that isn’t quite what I had in mind: what I would like to find is a reasonably comprehensive list of all known issues related to saving in external file formats. In addition to what I and others have mentioned previously, you could also try About Opening Microsoft Office Documents in the help file, which lists some of the features known to cause problems (conversion challenges). Could this be something more like what you were expecting to find? -- Shawn K. Quinn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] ODT becomes ZIP on download in Windows XP Pro SP2
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 20:30 -0500, Pete Holsberg wrote: There is apparently a security feature in Windows XP Pro SP2 that causes Internet Explorer to examine the contents of a file you ask it to open, and make a judgement based on the file's contents rather than on its file type. Thus when you click on myfile.odt on a website, IE will download it as myfile.ZIP. Has anyone found a way to reconfigure either IE or Windows to permit ODT files to be downloaded as ODT? The obvious workaround is to use a real Web browser, not an operating system component (IE), to browse the Web. This security feature will probably cause at least as many problems as it solves. It would rename for example .tgz denoting a gzipped tar file to .gz, and somewhat randomly rename other files based on what Microsoft thinks something should be renamed based on what is in it. Look at /usr/share/file/magic (on Debian) or its equivalent on other Unix-like operating systems and notice how many entries are in there. Notice how many are commented out. Notice how many of them don't neatly correspond to a given filename extension on Windows (not that they are all that standardized to begin with). -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Google jamming open and office ?
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 09:09 -0500, Chad Smith wrote: If you're selling burned CDs for $5 a pop, you don't have a lot of profit to advertise with, and if you selling pressed CDs in a box for $25 or higher, for a number of reasons, you're probably going to change the name. If not only for fear of the wrath of the community, also to keep your customers for yourself, and not let them know they can download it for free. Wrath of the community? RMS himself says there's nothing wrong with selling copies of free (as in freedom) software and in fact used to sell tapes with the latest version of Emacs for $150 each back in the day. -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Google jamming open and office ?
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 15:53 -0500, Chad Smith wrote: On 11/26/05, Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 09:09 -0500, Chad Smith wrote: If you're selling burned CDs for $5 a pop, you don't have a lot of profit to advertise with, and if you selling pressed CDs in a box for $25 or higher, for a number of reasons, you're probably going to change the name. If not only for fear of the wrath of the community, also to keep your customers for yourself, and not let them know they can download it for free. Wrath of the community? RMS himself says there's nothing wrong with selling copies of free (as in freedom) software and in fact used to sell tapes with the latest version of Emacs for $150 each back in the day. Last I checked, RMS wasn't a regular contributor to the OpenOffice.org project. And I'm referring here specifically to the OOo community. There are many instances where people were yelled at, called thefts, and much worse for selling OOo for anything more than cost. Have you read this: (from http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html) Since free refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell copies is crucial: collections of free software sold on CD-ROMs are important for the community, and selling them is an important way to raise funds for free software development. Therefore, a program which people are not free to include on these collections is not free software. Now, trying to pass off OOo as your own work and putting a Microsoft-style EULA on it is quite wrong on more than one level. But simply selling a copy of OOo and labeling it as such, I don't see a problem with. -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Online only apps
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 21:06 -0800, Terri Sprague wrote: I am one of over a million RV full-timers in the US. Quite a few of us, even though we have internet satellite connections, do not stay connected all the time. In my opinion, that is a disaster waiting to happen because of hackers, viruses, etc. This method becomes unworkable the moment you need to access your computer remotely. The surest defense against hackers and viruses is to quit running the operating system most susceptible to hackers and viruses, which is Windows. It also helps to have a real, hardware firewall (not a piece of Windows software, which I liken to putting up a glass security fence). Even when I lived in a stationary house and had cable internet, my computer was not on all the time. When I was done, I shut my computer off, not just in hibernation. I believe this to be detrimental to the components in a computer long term. I'm pretty sure this is what ate the power supply on one of my computers, as I used to do this as well. My computer was also the only one out of four, in the house, that did not have to be fixed because of a virus. The others were on 24/7, even when their owners were sleeping. It's a pretty sure bet all three of the other computers were running Windows. Were they? Having a PC running Windows plugged into the Internet directly, without a real, hardware firewall in between, is a recipe for disaster. -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 22:31 -0500, mark wrote: Then, of course, there's the LARGE number of us who DESPISE HTML mail (aka virus-spreader email), and who REALLY DO NOT WANT to HAVE to open a goddamned dog-slow word processor to read our email. (We won't even *begin* to talk about idiots who send out .pdf email) Viruses in e-mail are a problem specific to Windows. In fact, I don't know why they aren't simply called Windows viruses, as that is the only operating system left for which viruses are seen in the wild on a regular basis. But you're right, usually HTML mail is just plain unnecessary. -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Microsoft eyes making desktop apps free
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 14:05 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Microsoft eyes making desktop apps free By Ina Fried Documents show some insiders are questioning whether existing software should be supported by ads, CNET News.com has learned. Free of charge (price) is not the same thing as free as a bird or free speech (freedom). This article talks about the former, OOo is the latter; I don't think Microsoft will ever release any software of the magnitude of their office suite as free software (latter definition). To put it in perspective: Microsoft's suite will still ship with an ever-verbose license agreement, which will now additionally forbid hacking around or blocking the advertising. Instead of expensive slaveware, you now have zero-cost slaveware. Not much of a difference. -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Microsoft eyes making desktop apps free
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 17:45 -0600, Randomthots wrote: Shawn K. Quinn wrote: Free of charge (price) is not the same thing as free as a bird or free speech (freedom). Understand that for the vast majority (including me) the difference is almost moot. The fact that I couldn't hack the code if my life depended on it renders open-source the functional equivalent of free-ware. The only real difference is that if I had the money I could theoretically hire someone to do it for me. I don't so I can't. The difference is far from moot, especially when you consider a Microsoft EULA (end-user license agreement). Obviously, you're one of the people that just accepts it without actually reading what you are agreeing to. Next time you install non-free (as in freedom) software, read the EULA. All of it. Then realize by the nature of the LGPL, OOo has *none* of those encumbering conditions. Microsoft's EULAs are particularly obnoxious. Even if you cannot program, the availability of OOo as free software means a lot. For one, it means if you decide to change operating systems, you can still run a native version of OOo (assuming it's ported to that OS). Will Microsoft ever compile a version of its office suite for GNU/Linux? GNU/Hurd? FreeBSD? OpenBSD? NetBSD? Solaris? I sure wouldn't bet money on it... Free software means when you *can* afford to hire a programmer to make a feature enhancement to OOo, you can do so. Free software means security-critical bugs get fixed now, not when the vendor (like Microsoft) decides to finally say yeah, this really is an issue, we'll have a patch out by Thursday on Friday morning. (Anyone remember the teardrop vulnerability in the Linux kernel that also affected Windows?) And the list goes on... As an aside, I think use of the term open source has confused far too many people (and given the chance for some unscrupulous people and companies to call things open source where the user's freedoms were dubious at best). Say what negative things you want about Richard Stallman, but he was on to something when he started the free software movement and called it that (and, no, Stallman has *nothing* to do with the open source movement, which came along later and adopted only some of the free software movement's platform, arguably to the detriment of both movements). -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Gates memo warns of 'disruptive' changes
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 11:31 -0500, Chad Smith wrote: It seems MS is more worried about Writely - http://www.writely.com/ - than it is about OpenOffice.org. Really? They can't be *too* worried about it, after all, the first thing I got upon visiting was an ASP.NET session cookie. That's not a slam against OOo, merely a suggestion that a online version of OOo (like, perhaps, the one Google is developing) would be a good idea right about now. Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't want everything I do with a word processor to be routed through Google. -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] OOo Writer with Outlook?
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 11:50 -0500, Chuck wrote: Outlook has an option to let you use MS Word as your email editor. Does anyone know if it's possible to make it use OOo Writer instead? The more I work with OOo the more a like it over MS Office. Why would you want to use something like OOo Writer as an e-mail editor? Any format beyond plain text, including HTML, Word, and even ODF formats, bloats the size significantly, and is inconsiderate of people who pay by the byte (and yes, some people still do). -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: re: Massachussetts registered voters
On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 10:41 -0400, Chad Smith wrote: And, as far as Andrew's statement being absurd, OOo *DOES* open MSO stuff- and so do hundreds of other non-MS programs. If every piece of MSO Software on earth disappeared, through some sort of mega-virus, or miracle, the *DATA* of the files said in their ultra-secret, evil, litttle propriatary software will be completely intact. Today, it does. There's nothing saying tomorrow's MSO won't save in formats designed to be read by other programs. This is Microsoft's way of doing business. Don't be surprised if ODF support is gone from MSO from the next version after it is in. Freedom, including free software, is anathema to Microsoft (this includes OOo as well as GNU/Linux). The fact we can read a MSO doucment anywhere else is fortunate, and I would go as far as to say Microsoft considers this to be a problem they are in the process of fixing (read: breaking utterly for anyone but users of their products). -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: re: Massachussetts registered voters
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 17:47 +1000, Bob Long wrote: So, if MSO supported ODF, we could say to such people that *both* OOo and MSO use the same format, so there will be *no* formatting differences when exchanging files (assuming MS implements it correctly). Big assumption there. Microsoft's latest excuse for a Web browser doesn't get HTML, HTTP, or CSS completely right. I think even the TCP/IP stack in Windows does not rate limit ICMP replies (making UDP port scanning far easier than it should be). I'm sure there are countless other times Microsoft's programmers have been handed a standard and then decided we just aren't going to implement these parts right here, too much work. In spite of this, somehow, people still buy Microsoft products because of the flashy TV commercials that say do all this in a world of devices and products that run with Windows. I hate to say it, but at some point that might need to be our next step... -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: re: Massachussetts registered voters
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 12:01 -0400, Chad Smith wrote: On 10/27/05, Robin Laing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MS makes a defacto standard. It is not recognized as a standard. It has not been submitted to any standards organization. It is not a standard. ODF is being submitted to ISO, the same people that do the ISO9000 standardization. Defacto standard is really the only one that matters. [...] if 95% or more of people use a certain thing a certain way, then that's pretty much standardized. Microsoft's binary formats can't truly be considered a standard if there is no software-independent way to access the information inside them and full documentation of the format. Sure, we could, in theory, wait for Microsoft to submit their formats as an ISO standard, but frankly, the NHL will play their first season in hell first (and Microsoft can always change the format with the next version as they have done before). We could put up with the status quo of a filter that might read this version of Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc. documents, but there's no guarantee the next version won't totally break compatibility. I think it's great that someone has reverse-engineered most of the current MSO formats but, really, we shouldn't have to. Having a fully documented, open standard like ODF for productivity software file formats puts the burden on Microsoft (and others) to support standardization with their actions. Any company can sign up to become a member of W3C or OASIS, and do the same thing Microsoft has. To actually support the standards in software is a different matter entirely. To use Microsoft's file formats is to play Microsoft's game. Playing Microsoft's game implies playing by Microsoft's rules and at Microsoft's whims. If Microsoft decides to drop support for older document formats, you're stuck, until and unless someone finds a way to read them anyway. ODF allows one freedom from the Microsoft-controlled rat race. If you don't like ODF, please, feel free to continue trusting Microsoft with your data. Eventually, you will lose the freedom to jump ship thanks to the DMCA. Microsoft only cares that you keep using their products and giving them your money; they really don't care whether or not you can use a competing product. -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] re: Massachussetts registered voters
On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 12:22 -0400, Chad Smith wrote: And, if ODF is so all consuming, why would you *want* Microsoft to support it? If ODF is all that matters about OOo, as soon as MSO supports it, OOo is dead, right? I mean, if ODF success is the only key to OOo success - then if MSO has it, there's no need for OOo anymore. Right? I really don't think that ODF is the be-all and end-all of OOo success. However, it's a large part of giving users the freedom to choose whatever productivity software they prefer, even if it is not in, say, Microsoft's (and its shareholders') best interests that users use OOo or even some Brand X Office suite. ODF allows productivity software to compete on its merits, not the fact that Microsoft controls Windows and thus only makes their applications run under Windows and attaches all kinds of silly rules to the use of them in the EULA. (In fact, the last EULA I saw specifically forbade the user from running MSO under anything but a licensed copy of Windows.) -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
